Submitting expert opinion letters to explain your work to establish that you qualify for the EB-1A classification is an excellent tool, especially if you meet one of the criteria that cannot be clearly demonstrated with documentary evidence. But what information should these letters include, especially if you want to establish that you have made original contributions of major significance in your field? In this article, we will discuss that using a real case decided by the Administrative Office of Appeals of U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (“AAO”).
Background facts
A company that develops semiconductors and related technology wanted to petition a senior staff engineer for EB-1A status based on his extraordinary abilities in electronics packaging and semiconductor thermal management. The petition was ultimately denied and the petitioning company appealed claiming that the Director misapplied the law and facts. The AAO reviewed the appeal and ultimately dismissed it. (1)
For the purposes of this article, I will focus only on what the AAO said about the expert opinion letters so you can understand how these letters will be evaluated and what information you can include so these letters can be improved. “The Petitioner submitted 13 letters from experts in the electronics packaging and semiconductor thermal management fields” to establish that the Senior Staff Engineer made original contributions of major significance. (2)
It is okay to ask for expert opinion letters for your petition
In this case, the Director minimized the importance of the Senior Staff Engineer’s reference letters because he asked for them from experts to support his petition. The Director’s position was that his “original contributions in the field must be demonstrated by preexisting, independent, and corroborating evidence.” However, the AAO agreed with the Senior Staff Engineer and stated that “there is no blanket rule that solicited expert letters warrant less evidentiary weight than preexisting evidence.” (3)
This point should be obvious. How else can you get expert opinion letters for your petition unless you ask for them? I am pointing this out in case, in a Request for Evidence, you see this language, you will know that it is nonsense.
You can also cite the case that the AAO cited, Rubin v. Miller, 478 F.Supp.3d 499, 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“[T]he [USCIS] Decision Letter does not reasonably explain why evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the Petition carries more weight than new materials, specifically opinion letters.”).(4) However, it is advisable to seek legal counsel when responding to a Request for Evidence.
Expert opinion letters need to establish your original contributions of major significance in your field
While agreeing that it was okay for the Senior Staff Engineer to ask for letters, the AAO criticized their quality because, while the letters discuss his contributions, they do not discuss his impact on the field. Specifically, the letters did “not explain how the Beneficiary’s specific research has advanced the field or provide examples of applications that have successfully adopted his ideas.”(5) They discussed two examples:
Example 1
A letter was submitted from a professor of technology and economics at a Hungarian university.
This letter lauded “the importance of the Beneficiary’s research on thermal management of electronics”. However, “the letter [did] not explain how the Beneficiary’s specific research has advanced these fields, whether any electronic devices or data centers have successfully implemented his ideas, or whether his work unlocked doors to other important applications or studies in the fields.” (6)
Example 2
“[A] fellow emeritus of a U.S. technology company praise[d] the [Senior Staff Engineer’s] research on the impact of aging mechanical properties of thermally conductive gap fillers… [b]ut like the previous letter, [the] letter does not explain how [his] specific research has advanced the field or provide examples of applications that have successfully adopted his ideas.” (7)
The AAO’s Conclusion
The AAO concluded by saying that the Senior Staff Engineer’s letters:
- Did not show how his original contributions are of a major significance in his field, and
- Even if he had made original contributions of a major significance in his field, he has not shown that these contributions extended beyond the Petitioning company’s customers.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- USCIS gets the law wrong sometimes and occasionally ignores their own policy manual. If you receive a Request for Evidence, review it with your lawyer and make sure that USCIS is not making up the law or holding you to a higher or different standard. Sometimes, USCIS uses artificially intelligence to review petitions. Other times, there may be language in the Request for Evidence that has nothing to do with your case. You may receive an RFE that makes it seem like they did not review the evidence submitted. Responding to a Request for Evidence is the time to clearly state what the law is, address USCIS’ concerns (or explain what they got wrong) and why you qualify for the benefit.
- If you plan on having experts write opinion letters to attest to your original and original contributions of major significance in your field, it is important to show that these contributions are of major significance. Ways you can do this is explaining how your research has advanced the field. Also, you can explain how other individuals and companies have adopted your ideas or were influenced by your work.
This is not legal advice, just legal information. However, if you need advice specific to your case, please send an email to ejedwards@edwardslegalservices.com or send me a message via LinkedIn. I would be happy to connect!
(1) In re 37223991, at 2 (AAO Feb. 28, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/B2%20-%20Aliens%20with%20Extraordinary%20Ability/Decisions_Issued_in_2025/FEB282025_01B2203.pdf.
(2) Id. at 3
(3) Id. at 4
(4) Id.
(5) Id.
(6) Id.
(7) Id. at 5
